Conference turris::womannotes-v1

    Holly, there is an article about her on page 78 of the Boston
    Globe. She sounds as biased as some of the male judges who
    have been reported on in the paper earlier.
    Bonnie

    Here's the article from the Globe. Someone else typed it in.
    Topic 195 in MENNOTES covers this topic.
    
    		Alfred

PROTESTERS DEMAND JUDGE'S IMPEACHMENT, SAY SHE'S BIASED IN 
DIVORCE CASES


Dedham - Two dozen men and women from Cape Code picketed yesterday 
morning outside Norfold Probate Court, demanding the impeachment
of Judge Shirley R. Lewis for what they contend is her bias against
men in divorce cases, actions to frustrate appeals of her decisions
and bias toward litigants represented by lawyers she favors.

	"She's a law unto herself," said Stephen B. Brown of
Brewster, who asserted that Lewis had ordered him to pay
his former wife $25,000 although he was making $125 a week
and had been married only 15 months.

	"I've dedicated my life to seeing that no one else has
to go before her and be subjected to what I've been subjected 
to," said Jesse E. Torres 3d of Falmouth, cochairman of the 
newly formed Committee to Impeach Judge Shirley R. Lewis.

	Torres maintained that Lewis effectively caused
foreclosure on the $450,000 house he and his former
wife had shared and unjustifiably kept him from seeing
his 10-year-old twin sons since Labor Day.

	Lewis, first justice of Barnstable Probate and
Family Court in Hyannis, has been assigned to sit in
Dedham while a retired Superior Court judge.  Eileen
P. Griffin, conducts an inquiry for the Massachusetts
Supreme Judicial Court into a long-standing conflict
between Lewis and the Barnstable register of probate,
Frederic P. Claussen.  That inquiry will be limited
to administrative matters, not her judicial 
performance.

	Lewis, named to the bench in 1977 by Gov.
Dukakis, declined to be interviewed yesterday.
	"She's everything a judge shouldn't be - 
biased, dangerous, undignified," Torres said. "She
keeps people from appealing by impounding records,
by making rulings but delaying her findings of fact
for months and by issuing temporary orders, which
can't be appealed, and then keeping them in effect
for more than four years in some cases."

	A five-member committee of the Barnstable County
Bar Association in October undertook a review of the 
situation that was described by Hyannis lawyer Alan
A. Green as the "very delicate situation in the Probate
Court."
	According to Torres, complaints by 40 persons with
grievances against Lewis have been sent to the bar 
association as well as to the state's Judicial Conduct
Commission, the Supreme Judicial Court and Chief Justice
Alfred L. Podolski of the Probate Court.

Legislative action needed
	Impeachement, tantamount to indictment, needs
approval of the Massachusetts House.  The state Senate would 
then hold a trial.  But the only method used to remove a
Massachusetts judge in this century has been a procedure
called address, in which the Legislature asks the governor
to remove a judge and he does so with the concurrence of the 
Executive Council.
	The Judicial Conduct Commission can only recommend
sanctions against a judge to the Supreme Judicial Court.
The SJC can discipline or disbar - but cannot remove - 
a judge.  Podolski can reprimand or reassign a judge in 
his court.
	"If I have a woman for a client, and we're scheduled
to go before Shirley, I know we've got it made," another 
Hyannis attorney has said."  But if my client is a man, 
and we get Shirley, I know we're croaked.  She gives
everything to the woman - the house, the kids, very high
support payments.  And there's nothing you can do about it."
	The anti-Lewis committee has run ads in 14 
newspapers on Cape Cod, soliciting complaints against the
judge.
	Another sign-carrying sidewalk demonstrator yesterday
was Frank Mello, a 67-year-old retired auto body repairman
from East Falmouth whose divorce after 38 years of marriage
was made final by Lewis in 1982.  "I got my bed and bureau,"
he said.  "My wife - she's working full time in an electronics
factory - got our three-bedroom house on 6.9 acres that's
worth probably $200,000.  And I pay $50 a week in alimony
and property tases on the house."

       re .1:
       
       > She sounds as biased as some of the male judges who have been
       > reported on in the paper earlier. 
       
       Indeed.
       
       And no doubt there was much clucking in this conference when the
       Globe ran a series of articles about the judge in Somerville
       (Heffernan?) who turned a deaf ear to many women in his courtroom.
       
       But I don't recall any notes wondering if there were female judges
       who were similarly biased against men.
       
       In theory, equality is fine; in practice, it's terribly difficult
       to see where the center line really ought to go.
       
       --Mr Topaz 

    
    	RE:  .3
    
    	Mr. Topaz -- I would suggest that you take the time to read
    	the conference rather than speculate as to who "clucks" over
    	what here.
    
    	When you attempt to judge/comment on us (based on your own
    	speculation rather than facts), keep in mind that it may or
    	may not have anything whatsoever to do with reality.
    
    							Suzanne...

       re .4:
       
       Oh, dear, shall I complain about being "attacked" for speaking
       what's on my mind?
       
       Suzanne, you can suggest anything you please -- some might even
       say that you are wont to do so ad nauseum.  The point of .3, which
       you seem to have missed, is that women are likely to jump on the
       bandwagon when it's a male judge accused of sexism without being
       much concerned whether reverse sexism takes place, and men are
       likely to do much the same when the players are reversed.  That
       is, a group of people seems to be much more likely to complain of
       discrimination when it's directed against them, but their interest
       in discrimination may evaporate when it's directed at another
       group.  
       
       Got it?
       
       --Mr Topaz

    
    	Oh, how we make *ourselves* so upset over what someone else
    has said! Watching the salvos from an adjacent vantage point is
    quite entertaining, I had to chuckle... Could we be brave enough
    to imagine, if only for a moment, that we ourselves had said the
    other party's words, and feel their perspective?
    
    	Joe
    

    
    	RE:  .5
    
    	My dear Mr. Topaz, I'm sure that all of us are waiting 
    	breathlessly to hear your views on this topic.
    
    	So far, all you have done (in the process of "speaking your
    	mind") has been to snipe at the conference and then at me.
    
    	A personal attack occurs when one departs from the topic
    	in order to comment on the behavior/character/personal_traits
    	of others (rather than comment on their words/arguments.)
    
    	If you have something to say about this topic, say it.  Your
    	speculations about this conference (and the judgments/snide_
    	comments that go with them) have no place here.
    
    	By the way, you said *nothing* in .3 about your view that
    	both sexes tend to overlook the injustices done to the other.
    	Had you said such a thing, I would not have addressed you about
    	your note.
    
    	Have *you* got it now?

    Personally I'm waiting breathlessly to hear *anyones* views
    on the subject. Is this the same judge I read about who leaves
    court 1-2 hours early (in spite of a huge backlog) to swim at
    her health club?
    
    			Alfred

    Mr. Topaz,
    
    If you will recall, this judge on Cape Cod was being picketed by
    women as well as by men.  (The absence of numerous outraged
    comments by women entered into this note *prior* to your own
    contribution, does not mean that no one felt outraged, you
    know.)  Further, you will recall that the words and deeds of the
    male judge referred to resulted in the murder of a young woman,
    while those of this judge have not (yet) had any such extreme result.
    
    I could claim that you think that a man's impoverishment is as
    evil as a woman's murder, but instead I believe you weren't
    remembering deeply enough into the results of the sexist actions
    of the two judges.
    
    							Ann B.
    
    P.S.  You may deduce from my phrasing that I do not approve of the
    judge described in this note.

    re .3
    
    Just what is your point?  
    
    Your statement that you haven't noticed any notes
    wondering if there were any biased female judges out
    there sounds like so much clucking and finger pointing
    to me.  Doesn't sound like you HAVE a point.  
    
    The more power women gain for themselves, the more
    pressure is put on women to be exemplary.  Any woman who
    falls on her face is held up as an example to all, more
    so than males in similar positions would have ever been
    in the past (back when men were complacent in their
    positions of power and never questioned by women).  
    
    Now, women are shaking a few trees and the monkeys are
    screeming!!
    
    Karen
    
    

    I feel that the individual who suggested that woman are not as outraged
    about a member of their sex acting in a sexist way and then or at
    the same time saying that the women in this conference are not outraged
    barerly gave us time to reply to the article.  
    
    I saw this article in the Globe and another about a man from Marlboro
    that has three daughters.  The children were in a custody dispute
    between parents.  There is documentation indicating the children
    were abused by their mother.  A male judge had those children picked
    up at school and held in custody pending shipment to Colorado because
    Colorado has jurisdiction.  The children will probably be placed
    in foster care over the holidays until adults can decide where they
    belong.
    
    I am appalled at any descrimination.  I do not like to hear of women
    who brag they took their 'ex to the cleaners'.  I do not like to
    talk to men who do not support their children.  And most of all
    I do not like people who are not sensitive to the needs of children.
    
    Children need both parents.  Each of us owes emotional and financial
    support to our children.  The courts need to get rid of the stereotypes
    that say...
    
                 Men are the best providers
    
                 Women are the best nurturers
    
    I believe the press is doing a good job of reporting instances of
    sexism both for and against women and I have sent a letter to the
    Globe commending them for their articles.
    
    Although this is only the 10th or 11th reply...it appears that those
    of us (women) that have been able to get a word in have agreed that
    we want to hear and we want to do something about sexism irregardless
    of gender.

re: .10
    
    The more power women gain for themselves, the more
    pressure is put on women to be exemplary.

I would suggest that it is exactly the opposite -- the more *real* power
an identifiable group has, the less concerned we seem to be with the
failings of a specific member of that group.

Perhaps a topic for a new note?

Martin.

RE: .10

"The more power women gain for themselves, the more pressure is put on women to
be exemplary.  Any woman who falls on her face is held up as an example to all,
more so than males in similar positions would have ever been in the past"

I think that failure in high places is being criticised more, regardless of sex.

Jim.

Re:  Note 567.5
By:  CALLME::MR_TOPAZ

       
       >Suzanne, you can suggest anything you please -- some might even
       >say that you are wont to do so ad nauseum.  The point of .3, which
       >you seem to have missed, is that women are likely to jump on the
       >bandwagon when it's a male judge accused of sexism without being
       >much concerned whether reverse sexism takes place, and men are
       >likely to do much the same when the players are reversed.  That
       >is, a group of people seems to be much more likely to complain of
       >discrimination when it's directed against them, but their interest
       >in discrimination may evaporate when it's directed at another
       >group.  
       
	A valid point.  I get upset more about reverse discrimination
	than I do about the "average" discrimination.  Unfortunately,
	many people seemed to have missed this point, even after you 
	spell it out.
       

Re:  Note 567.7
By:  NEXUS::CONLON
    
    	>My dear Mr. Topaz, I'm sure that all of us are waiting 
    	>breathlessly to hear your views on this topic.
    
    	>So far, all you have done (in the process of "speaking your
    	>mind") has been to snipe at the conference and then at me.
    
    	>A personal attack occurs when one departs from the topic
    	>in order to comment on the behavior/character/personal_traits
    	>of others (rather than comment on their words/arguments.)
    
	Since when has commenting on behavior/character/personal
	traits of others (in the general sense - as he was speaking)
	constituted a personal attack?  In my interpretation of the
	plain English in .5, it seems as though he is commenting on
	men and women *in general*.  If that constitutes an "attack"
	to you - then you're reading the wrong file.  Try starting
	a "FAIRY_TALES" conference.


Re:  Note 567.10
By:  SMEGIT::BALLAM
    
    
    >Now, women are shaking a few trees and the monkeys are
    >screeming!!
    
	So, it's OK since it's a woman judge.  Oh, I see now.
	How about "In the demand for equality some women have
	been getting carried away and are now initiating reverse
	descrimination".  Watch out for coconuts...

    
    
Re:  Note 567.11
By:  MARCIE::JLAMOTTE

	>I do not like to talk to men who do not support their children. 

	If the woman makes more money and wants to "keep" the kids - let
	her pay for it!  Making a man pay child support when the woman
	is financially better off, and then denying him the right to
	see the kids he's paying to raise is ludicrous.

Dave

    

    	RE:  .15
    
    	Dave Low, you say that Mr. Topaz's note .5 was clearly about
    	both sexes (and not an attack.)  If you notice, I said the
    	*exact same thing* to him in my reply you quoted (i.e., that if
    	he had written .3 to include both sexes as he did in .5,
    	I never would have addressed his note!!!)  You chose to ignore
    	that part of my reply, I guess.
    
    
    	RE:  .13
    
    	Hank, that is a bunch of crap.  I did not comment on Mr. Topaz's
    	character (nor on his general behavior, etc.)
    
    	He made what I considered a snipe against the conference (and
    	against me), and I commented on his words IN THIS TOPIC (not
    	his words in notes in general.)
    
    							   Suzanne...

                     
    
        Don (Topaz), I'm still confused about your first reply.
    
    I entered the base note asking if anyone had more information than
    I did, and saying that I was suspending judgement until I knew more
    (usually a good strategy in a state of ignorance).  Bonnie then
    put in a pointer to more info and a cautious comment that the woman
    in question didn't seem to have acted responsibly.
    
    Did you think that Bonnie and I were being self-righteous and
    automatically assuming the woman was the victim?  Or were you
    suggesting that many women would automatically sympathize with her
    regardless of her record?  
    
    I'd like to know.
    
    Thanks. 
    
    Holly

       re .17:
       
       Holly --
              
       In .3, I neither sensed nor meant to imply any sense of self-
       righteousness or assumption that the Norfolk County judge (the
       female, who seems to give men the shaft in divorce cases) was
       really ok (implicitly because of her gender). To the contrary, 
       I have no doubt that you, Bonnie, and most others would recognize,
       acknowledge, and criticize discrimination when it gets uncovered.
       
       On the other hand, what I did mean to imply in .3 is that this
       conference is not a fertile place for the voluntary assumption of
       the likelihood of woman-against-men discrimination.  When the
       Heffernan articles ran in the Globe, attention was paid to them
       here, and there was surely some generalizing about the
       male-dominated system, etc.  Though I haven't re-read the notes, I
       doubt that, at the time that the Heffernan story was being
       discussed, anyone hear suggested that there are some women judges
       who are biased against men, or that a female-dominated system
       might be no less discriminatory. That's what this meant in .3: 

          And no doubt there was much clucking in this conference when
          the Globe ran a series of articles about the judge in
          Somerville (Heffernan?) who turned a deaf ear to many women in
          his courtroom. 
       
          But I don't recall any notes wondering if there were female
          judges who were similarly biased against men.               
       
       I'd see much the same thing happening if things were reversed. If
       the Norfolk County judge were the first one who got lambasted in
       the Globe, I'd expect to see whining and moaning (by the standard
       chorus of whiners and moaners) in MENNOTES, with no mention
       of the possibility that there might be male judges who routinely
       stiff women.  
       
       It's much easier to be sensitive to injustices on institutions and
       groups to which you belong.  It's harder to be sensitive to
       injustices on other groups; it can be particularly hard when it's
       an injustice to a group that is sometimes perceived as a rival or
       an oppressor.  That's an expansion of the last line in .3:
       
          In theory, equality is fine; in practice, it's terribly
          difficult to see where the center line really ought to go.

       Is that clearer?
       
       --Don/Mr Topaz

    Jes' a few random observations:
    
    Don's reply (.18) kind of has that ring of truth to me (easier
    to perceive injustices against me/mine than you/yours); one 
    indication of that might be the relatively low amount of 
    discussion in this note vs. the Heffernan note.  However it
    also seems to me that, at best, relative quantity of replies
    is a tenuous piece of "evidence": some notes have lots of replies
    because of tangents and flame contests; sometimes the conference(s)
    seem "quieter" (personally I find it annoying that my manager's
    expectations occasionally get in the way of noting, but. . .).
    
    Yet the story was first reported here by a woman.  Also, there 
    seems to be initial agreement amongst (at least some) women that
    if the facts of the case turn out to support the "plaintiffs"
    position, then the judge is indeed discriminatory and is as 
    undesirable as any male practicing the same.  And, as the Globe
    article mentions, the protesting group was made up of both women
    and men.
    
    Conclusions?  From me?  Ha!  Surely you jest.  After all, that would
    begin to imply some level of responsibility and/or commitment. 
    As I'm sure you're aware, these are things which are antithetical
    to any self-respecting baby-boomer, hippie, rock-'n'-roll playing,
    hotel-trashing, drug-devouring, commie-pinko, slimebucket.
    
    But that's o.k. - I plan to have a long second career in government.
    
    Steve
    
    

    1. This type of bias (if true) by *any* judge is improper.
    
    2. I have a hard time getting excited about the apparent unfairness
       of one female judge, when incredibly sexist decisions, remarks,
       and bases for judgement have been made/used by male judges -
       MANY, MANY male judges - for *years* .
    
    3. Which is not to say that women judges haven't made anti-female
       judgements and male judges haven't made pro-female judgements
       
    
    IDHM
    
    --DE
    

    Fine. Why should mine be different from anybody else's??
    
    :-)
    
    --DE
    

    I was divorced on the Cape in 1981.  Judge Lewis presided over
    my divorce case.  I had a male lawyer from off-Cape.  My ex-
    was put on the stand in front of a crowded courtroom.  I had
    not been receiving any child support from him for our one child.
    My lawyer did not ask him any questions.  But the judge did.
    She really lit into him and questioned him such that he admitted
    supporting his live-in girlfriend who wasn't working.  He was
    working plus receiving a 20-yr. retirement from the Navy.  She
    really made him look like a fool - maybe he deserved it.   I felt
    that it was Judge Lewis that represented me, not my lawyer.  
    I was very appreciative to have someone standing up for both me
    and my daughter.  The child support that was awarded was nothing
    out of the ordinary ($75 per week), but it could have been a lot
    less if not for her.  I have a good number of divorced friends,
    and was also involved in PWP where I met many more and, generally
    speaking, it *is* the woman that gets the rotten end, most of the
    responsibility and not enough money to raise the children.
    Judge Lewis has seen this too.